I'd argue that there's the same chance of a strip, fumble return for a TD on their 4th down attempt as there is a FG block return for TD.
- great point. If you're going to factor in the extremely unlikely scenario to try to prove your point, you have to take into account the extremely unlikely scenario on the other side of the coin as well.
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersfan34:
I'd argue that there's the same chance of a strip, fumble return for a TD on their 4th down attempt as there is a FG block return for TD.
- great point. If you're going to factor in the extremely unlikely scenario to try to prove your point, you have to take into account the extremely unlikely scenario on the other side of the coin as well.
You're just making yourself look like you can't man up and take a reasonable loss...nowhere near a moose.
A&M's kicker makes the FG's at an 85% rate. Let's be extremely generous and say that his kick will get blocked 5% of the time. Based on simple math, you're telling me you would turn down an 80% chance to simply close out the game then and there?
So lets say he misses the FG, or gets the FG blocked with no return - NW essentially has the ball at the exact same location if they were to go for it and get stuffed. The chances NW blocks the FG and return it for a TD are EXTREMELY small....a sane coach (to use your words) would pretty much dismiss this possibility as it is likely under a 1% chance.
Also, lets say they do go for it - there is no saying they don't score a TD if they go for it - if they run the ball and get past the first layer, its 7 pts (see OK last night).
I'm not sure on the bold section above....wouldn't you have to balance that against the chance of going 95yards in less than 30 seconds with no time outs? I'd put those odds at something like 95% unlikely.
0
Quote Originally Posted by MrTuttle05:
You're just making yourself look like you can't man up and take a reasonable loss...nowhere near a moose.
A&M's kicker makes the FG's at an 85% rate. Let's be extremely generous and say that his kick will get blocked 5% of the time. Based on simple math, you're telling me you would turn down an 80% chance to simply close out the game then and there?
So lets say he misses the FG, or gets the FG blocked with no return - NW essentially has the ball at the exact same location if they were to go for it and get stuffed. The chances NW blocks the FG and return it for a TD are EXTREMELY small....a sane coach (to use your words) would pretty much dismiss this possibility as it is likely under a 1% chance.
Also, lets say they do go for it - there is no saying they don't score a TD if they go for it - if they run the ball and get past the first layer, its 7 pts (see OK last night).
I'm not sure on the bold section above....wouldn't you have to balance that against the chance of going 95yards in less than 30 seconds with no time outs? I'd put those odds at something like 95% unlikely.
Hey416 bet, Would you defend the coach if he went for it and didn't get it.. Then NW got to the 40 (like they did) and then caught the hail mary.. Would you defend him for not kicking a 30 yd fg with the best kicker in the country ??? We can play this game all day
Not too sure. I'm not pretending that I'm not a good loser when it comes to gambling losses. I f-n hate it. I'm a much better loser in real life games for what it's worth.
0
Quote Originally Posted by stopweeping:
Hey416 bet, Would you defend the coach if he went for it and didn't get it.. Then NW got to the 40 (like they did) and then caught the hail mary.. Would you defend him for not kicking a 30 yd fg with the best kicker in the country ??? We can play this game all day
Not too sure. I'm not pretending that I'm not a good loser when it comes to gambling losses. I f-n hate it. I'm a much better loser in real life games for what it's worth.
NW had 2 or 3 chances to get ball back...T am had a 3rd n 7 and a 3rd n 13 and converted BOTH...then AM players ran out of bounds keeping a good 45 more secs on clock...NW Defense choked that last drive...and FG before Half by T AM was NO Good...i watched it 25 times....Refs had T AM -9 or so...
0
NW had 2 or 3 chances to get ball back...T am had a 3rd n 7 and a 3rd n 13 and converted BOTH...then AM players ran out of bounds keeping a good 45 more secs on clock...NW Defense choked that last drive...and FG before Half by T AM was NO Good...i watched it 25 times....Refs had T AM -9 or so...
NW had 2 or 3 chances to get ball back...T am had a 3rd n 7 and a 3rd n 13 and converted BOTH...then AM players ran out of bounds keeping a good 45 more secs on clock...NW Defense choked that last drive...and FG before Half by T AM was NO Good...i watched it 25 times....Refs had T AM -9 or so...
Then they would have reviewed a clear TD that A&M had in the first half that was called incomplete forcing A&M to kick a FG.
0
Quote Originally Posted by phillyfranko:
NW had 2 or 3 chances to get ball back...T am had a 3rd n 7 and a 3rd n 13 and converted BOTH...then AM players ran out of bounds keeping a good 45 more secs on clock...NW Defense choked that last drive...and FG before Half by T AM was NO Good...i watched it 25 times....Refs had T AM -9 or so...
Then they would have reviewed a clear TD that A&M had in the first half that was called incomplete forcing A&M to kick a FG.
I'm not sure on the bold section above....wouldn't you have to balance that against the chance of going 95yards in less than 30 seconds with no time outs? I'd put those odds at something like 95% unlikely.
You kick the FG and you make it (which is the scenario over 80% of the time) and you win the game 100% of the time.
You kick the FG and miss it, or get it blocked for no return, (which could happen about 19% of the time) and you still have to drive the field and score a TD - which you are saying is 95% unlikely.
Why not take an 80% shot at winning the game 100% of the time.
Boom is saying you don't kick it because of the under 1% chance that NW blocks the FG and returns it for a TD. As packersfan pointed out, if you go for it, it is just as likely that NW gets a fumble/int return for a TD, and probably an even better chance that A&M actually scores a TD.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 416bet:
I'm not sure on the bold section above....wouldn't you have to balance that against the chance of going 95yards in less than 30 seconds with no time outs? I'd put those odds at something like 95% unlikely.
You kick the FG and you make it (which is the scenario over 80% of the time) and you win the game 100% of the time.
You kick the FG and miss it, or get it blocked for no return, (which could happen about 19% of the time) and you still have to drive the field and score a TD - which you are saying is 95% unlikely.
Why not take an 80% shot at winning the game 100% of the time.
Boom is saying you don't kick it because of the under 1% chance that NW blocks the FG and returns it for a TD. As packersfan pointed out, if you go for it, it is just as likely that NW gets a fumble/int return for a TD, and probably an even better chance that A&M actually scores a TD.
I'd argue that there's the same chance of a strip, fumble return for a TD on their 4th down attempt as there is a FG block return for TD.
The play I'm pissed about as a NU backer is A&M's play call on 3rd and 2. RUN IT UP THE GUT and then you have an argument to go for it on 4th and short...but once they lost 4 yards on 3rd and 2, you HAVE to kick the FG and make it a 2-possession game.
0
Quote Originally Posted by packersfan34:
4th and 6 and you want them to go for it.
I'd argue that there's the same chance of a strip, fumble return for a TD on their 4th down attempt as there is a FG block return for TD.
The play I'm pissed about as a NU backer is A&M's play call on 3rd and 2. RUN IT UP THE GUT and then you have an argument to go for it on 4th and short...but once they lost 4 yards on 3rd and 2, you HAVE to kick the FG and make it a 2-possession game.
Not too sure. I'm not pretending that I'm not a good loser when it comes to gambling losses. I f-n hate it. I'm a much better loser in real life games for what it's worth.
At least, you are honest about it. You can't tell anyone with a straight face that's such a "black and white" situation any 'sane" coach would have gone for it. It's just bitterness.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 416bet:
Not too sure. I'm not pretending that I'm not a good loser when it comes to gambling losses. I f-n hate it. I'm a much better loser in real life games for what it's worth.
At least, you are honest about it. You can't tell anyone with a straight face that's such a "black and white" situation any 'sane" coach would have gone for it. It's just bitterness.
Should of run up the middle 2nd and 3rd down would of had 1st down...and then would of taken knee...I was on NW as well but dont really consider it a moose...if I was coach of A&M with best kicker in game you make the FG and can't lose...the 2nd and 3rd down calls are suspect...this is one of the reasons why "handicapping" a game or "what the #'s say" don't mean anything more than "what should happen"...I should of won side and lost total and lost change but instead lost 16.5K:) no moose just unfortunate
0
Should of run up the middle 2nd and 3rd down would of had 1st down...and then would of taken knee...I was on NW as well but dont really consider it a moose...if I was coach of A&M with best kicker in game you make the FG and can't lose...the 2nd and 3rd down calls are suspect...this is one of the reasons why "handicapping" a game or "what the #'s say" don't mean anything more than "what should happen"...I should of won side and lost total and lost change but instead lost 16.5K:) no moose just unfortunate
Based on this discussion, it's obvious this wasn't as bad a call as some are making it out to be, because both sides have valid arguments.
Controversial call, but certainly not a BAD call. You have the Groza kicker and you trust him to win the game for you. And he did.
This crazy bowl season is getting into people's heads and they are truly losing it...
There is NO valid argument for Texas A&M NOT Kicking the field goal in that situation...
You have the best kicking team in the country... Not one of the best... not top 10... THE BEST... there was a 0-1% chance of something odd happening on the 31 yd field goal attempt... If you are a coach it is an absolute no brainer...
The field goal seals the game against a team that marched down the field twice on you in the last 8 minutes of play...
Northwestern backers had a chance at the end of the game... They had the ball with the chance to score the garbage touchdown to score...
For this result to be considered a Moose, strange, fixed, or even slightly odd has truly lost it under the pressure of this bowl season...
Nothing weird about how this game ended... Same scenario gets repeated 99 times out of 100...
Sorry... But this is pathetic, even for Covers
0
Quote Originally Posted by andy88c:
Based on this discussion, it's obvious this wasn't as bad a call as some are making it out to be, because both sides have valid arguments.
Controversial call, but certainly not a BAD call. You have the Groza kicker and you trust him to win the game for you. And he did.
This crazy bowl season is getting into people's heads and they are truly losing it...
There is NO valid argument for Texas A&M NOT Kicking the field goal in that situation...
You have the best kicking team in the country... Not one of the best... not top 10... THE BEST... there was a 0-1% chance of something odd happening on the 31 yd field goal attempt... If you are a coach it is an absolute no brainer...
The field goal seals the game against a team that marched down the field twice on you in the last 8 minutes of play...
Northwestern backers had a chance at the end of the game... They had the ball with the chance to score the garbage touchdown to score...
For this result to be considered a Moose, strange, fixed, or even slightly odd has truly lost it under the pressure of this bowl season...
Nothing weird about how this game ended... Same scenario gets repeated 99 times out of 100...
they were down 30-7?? and they came back late to make it 30-22 why would they want to give them the ball back with a one score possesion?? rather than kick the short fg that is practically an extra point for a&m kicker.
my thoughts exactly.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Cash_In420:
they were down 30-7?? and they came back late to make it 30-22 why would they want to give them the ball back with a one score possesion?? rather than kick the short fg that is practically an extra point for a&m kicker.
This crazy bowl season is getting into people's heads and they are truly losing it...
There is NO valid argument for Texas A&M NOT Kicking the field goal in that situation...
You have the best kicking team in the country... Not one of the best... not top 10... THE BEST... there was a 0-1% chance of something odd happening on the 31 yd field goal attempt... If you are a coach it is an absolute no brainer...
The field goal seals the game against a team that marched down the field twice on you in the last 8 minutes of play...
Northwestern backers had a chance at the end of the game... They had the ball with the chance to score the garbage touchdown to score...
For this result to be considered a Moose, strange, fixed, or even slightly odd has truly lost it under the pressure of this bowl season...
Nothing weird about how this game ended... Same scenario gets repeated 99 times out of 100...
Sorry... But this is pathetic, even for Covers
THANK YOU.
0
Quote Originally Posted by AgainstDaConsen:
This crazy bowl season is getting into people's heads and they are truly losing it...
There is NO valid argument for Texas A&M NOT Kicking the field goal in that situation...
You have the best kicking team in the country... Not one of the best... not top 10... THE BEST... there was a 0-1% chance of something odd happening on the 31 yd field goal attempt... If you are a coach it is an absolute no brainer...
The field goal seals the game against a team that marched down the field twice on you in the last 8 minutes of play...
Northwestern backers had a chance at the end of the game... They had the ball with the chance to score the garbage touchdown to score...
For this result to be considered a Moose, strange, fixed, or even slightly odd has truly lost it under the pressure of this bowl season...
Nothing weird about how this game ended... Same scenario gets repeated 99 times out of 100...
Train isn't here holding your balls and coddling you like a newborn..... if that isn't an indication of how wrong you are then i don't know what is....
0
Boom,
Train isn't here holding your balls and coddling you like a newborn..... if that isn't an indication of how wrong you are then i don't know what is....
Train isn't here holding your balls and coddling you like a newborn..... if that isn't an indication of how wrong you are then i don't know what is....
0
Quote Originally Posted by bbdd005:
Boom,
Train isn't here holding your balls and coddling you like a newborn..... if that isn't an indication of how wrong you are then i don't know what is....
Well also A & M is suppose to be trying to run the clock out with 2 min left and NW only had 1 TO left and they are throwing 35 yd passes.Some of these coaches neeed to get burned once in a while with their stupidity!!
But as far as the fg to up 2 scores you gotta kick it!
0
Well also A & M is suppose to be trying to run the clock out with 2 min left and NW only had 1 TO left and they are throwing 35 yd passes.Some of these coaches neeed to get burned once in a while with their stupidity!!
But as far as the fg to up 2 scores you gotta kick it!
Usually agree with you but you are wrong on this one- How many 30 yd fg's have been blocked and returned for a TD? That kick is the same as making as extra point. Every sane coach would have kicked that. Hell even with Saban's shitty kickers they would have kicked that ball. Not sure how you th
0
Boom-
Usually agree with you but you are wrong on this one- How many 30 yd fg's have been blocked and returned for a TD? That kick is the same as making as extra point. Every sane coach would have kicked that. Hell even with Saban's shitty kickers they would have kicked that ball. Not sure how you th
really what is the disagreement about.....booms you are correct
they kicked the fg to cover the spread......this is the only reason......that is exactly why they called the timeout so the coach could get the call.....kick or not kick
0
really what is the disagreement about.....booms you are correct
they kicked the fg to cover the spread......this is the only reason......that is exactly why they called the timeout so the coach could get the call.....kick or not kick
really what is the disagreement about.....booms you are correct
they kicked the fg to cover the spread......this is the only reason......that is exactly why they called the timeout so the coach could get the call.....kick or not kick
0
Quote Originally Posted by AllPaBaby:
really what is the disagreement about.....booms you are correct
they kicked the fg to cover the spread......this is the only reason......that is exactly why they called the timeout so the coach could get the call.....kick or not kick
Of course you're saying that because you lost... However, I have, and I know you have seen that exact same situation, where a team needed a FG, and a TD to win, and on the first drive, they have to settle. They do that because they are relying on their D to get the stop, and then relying on their offense to come back on the field, and complete that final drive.
I mean think about it... At some point in time before the end of the game, they were going to have to kick a FG. So why not do it then?
0
Of course you're saying that because you lost... However, I have, and I know you have seen that exact same situation, where a team needed a FG, and a TD to win, and on the first drive, they have to settle. They do that because they are relying on their D to get the stop, and then relying on their offense to come back on the field, and complete that final drive.
I mean think about it... At some point in time before the end of the game, they were going to have to kick a FG. So why not do it then?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
- great point. If you're going to factor in the extremely unlikely scenario to try to prove your point, you have to take into account the extremely unlikely scenario on the other side of the coin as well.
no moose just unfortunate
THANK YOU.
Hot Forum Topics
